Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 69 (some duplicates have been removed)
and tariff and having this set of customers under cca and guaranteed off takers the renewable power for years to come you can assure to the developers there is the market to sell into and thereby help them to get financing and get projects on the ground and supporting clean investments. for example by working with the pension and retirement funds to use some portion of the portfolios to go towards these programs and demonstrations on public property and that's been started already on clean power sf. we have almost 40 members in total and it's a fantastic group and we're lucky to have knowledgeable folks and universities in the area and active community members so a very big thank you to all those that worked on this for a year and a half and that's it. >> thank you very much for the presentation. why don't we open it up to comments or questions from the commission. commissioner olague. >> i was wondering how much time was given specifically to your conversations to the clean power sf? >> we -- basically we had a different topic each month. one month puc came in and one month others came in
a cca program in the city" and in earlier drafts were it was connecting to the goals in there. when it came to the final draft instead of referencing cca in the recommendation sections it says sf puc. i am taking that to code they could do it in multiple ways, one which is a cca format, and one of the other things i will point out i brought up more than once the fact we're looking altdoing 100% renewable in the city and the bay guard an pointed it out this week and no mention much public hour. >> >> and that's how you get to 100% and if that's the true goal there is only one way and have a public power system that is 100% renewable and that is never mentioned in this report. >> thank you very much. is there a response as to -- a couple of things. first, was there a decision to sort of deemphasize or -- or not emphasize as much community choice aggregation. i am wondering if you could comment on that. >> yeah, we tried to -- maybe not equal weight because there is different controls in the area but we wanted to do that throughout utility, through pg&e and through the city, and cc
for implementation of our cca program. we also are in working constructively with lafco in their advisory role to the board in implementation our cca program we are operating under a memorandum of understanding with lafco that describes the roles and responsibilities of our respective staff and we expect that as we get to actual program launch we will come back to you with a new mou that describes our ongoing relationship at the time. the mou we're operating under this point is expired but i think we're both comfortable to serve those roles until the program takes better shape and we can then revisit roles and responds with that information in hand. then the other item i wanted to make mention of by way of update is some of our activities at the california public utilities commission. we did go forward with the filing of our revised implementation agreement, implementation plan at the california public utilities commission. it is under review there and we expect it to be certified by their executive director before the -- by january. we have seen a proposed decision from the california pub
for cca, so there is some latitude to you from a budget standpoint about the position, so in terms of flexibility with option two. i don't think you need to say there is only one position available and we have two positions authorized and we're going to cut the one, and then maybe what you would be saying you want to authorize the other, but with cost effectiveness if you go out figure out in the interview that you could do the two with one you would do that if that makes sense to you. >> okay. commissioner avalos, did you want to add anything? i think -- >> i would have a preference that we don't -- we have a search process that doesn't go through the rigga mo rol that jason discussed right now with the ideal and we could have a flexible process for option two, but i just thought jason was shaking his head. i wasn't counting on the process so involved with the process and the mayor process -- the mayor be part of that process. that to me doesn't seem like a real easy process to go through. i know it doesn't seem like one that has the best interest of the lafco members, commis
that created cca which is a policy that inevitably will fail because it creates no jobs in san francisco. it gives money to shell who import solar energy from nevada. correct me if i am wrong and there are numerous books written about how this policy will fail. what you need in that position is someone with new blood and global warming is real and emergency and a crisis. san francisco is the kind of city of the tail that wags the dog. we can create a policy that matches the german policy of creating jobs, cash flow in this town. the only state that has done it so far is verment and gainsville florida you need somebody here who is a critic of cca, not somebody in house and along with the shell game because it inevitably going to fail. if you don't have somebody speaking that understands the policy how it inevitably will fail, must fail. it's designed to fail. if you don't have somebody that understands that concept in the position then you're just going to be walking down the road to inevitably throwing money at a policy that will fail, so would urge when looking for somebody ask t
the provisions of the cca code of conduct that were adopted in legislation, sponsored by senator leno, so we expect that proposed decision to become final in the next 30 to 60 day time period so we will have clarity on those rules of engagement are before we launch our program, and we are closely monitoring the green tariff pricing proposal that pg&e sprited to the california puc for approval. that is the program when it was initially proposed by pg&e would have pg&e offering to san franciscans an opportunity for 100% renewable product that is greening up their portfolio to using renewable energy credits, so they have placed a proposal before the california puc for -- their agreement. parties are engaged in asking questions, testimony has been filed. the cupuc had scheduled hearings in december for the proposal, but those hearings on hold in order to allow parties to talk further and potentially arrive at a settlement. there really isn't active settlement discussion under way right now. we expect that may happen in january, and if you play out that process we think that maybe july or au
certain restrictions on both parties, the utility, in our case pg&e and on us as a cca. broadly speaking it prohibits either party from misleading customers. it requires that any expenditures that pg&e incurs to actively market against the program cannot be reimbursed by rate payers and shared by shareholders. it allows pg&e to answer questions and educate about their program and how it compares to our program. it requires both parties to work with the california public utilities commission public advisor's office to create a comparison document that would be made able by all parties on the two program offerings. so that gives you some of the key elements. >> and the code of conduct you said is in the process of being approved or is approved. >> so a proposed decision was drafted and sent out for comment by the cupuc staff. it then by state statute sits before the body for not less than 30 days before the commission may adopt, hold, or modify and then adopt the item. >> very good. do we expect that the way it is now to change dramatically? that some of the restrictions could be cha
the phrasing of that, but i think that -- it's hard to imagine how you even with cca, how you get to the objectives without other considerations. i mean you have a discussion of municipal load which is a good thing but i don't think that goes far enough. commissioner avalos. >> yeah. i just want to be clear of what i just said because i think it's important that we have -- i think 25 recommendations at least. >> 29. >> 39. >> 39. that's a lot like to list and then say we're going to do, and if there's a time lineline that can go through it or recommendations that are more salient than others to put forward to me that is important to include in the resolution that gives some direction actually how we go to implementation of the plan. >>i would say when this was originally envisioned the idea would be we would get a recommendation from the task force and use that to move forward on recommendations that we should take forward and timelines of those and more economics on it and the task force didn't delve into that area and some are no or low cost but others like caa have large po
to is the cost responsibility surcharge where if a customer leaves pg&e's bundedel service and comes to a cca pg&e will take a portion of the fees they used to charge that customer and those fees will follow the customer so the bill premiums that i am showing here include that as part of the premium so this is all in image of how your bill changes even though it's something we're not charging and pg&e is charging and they joined the program we're including in the numbers so it's transparent to customers. >> and that fee is reflected in every monthly bill? >> yes. it's on a separate item from pg&e on the cleanpower sf portion of the bill and there is a separate page that -- this is typically how it's happening, a separate page what pg&e characterizes as third party charges and those are the city and county of san francisco charges to the customer. >> and how long does pg&e have the ability to charge that fee into the program? >> it's not clear. that gets revisited on a regular basis by the california public utilities commission. >> okay. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> excuse me. i'm sorry.
rates. and we did and that changed the fundamental picture. and we have a cca program that has different burdens placed on it as a result of the board of supervisors. it's important for us to see how those changes are reflected in the financial program. and last year in order to make the power enterprise balance, we took a whole bunch of capital program and put it beyond 10 years. which is not to ignore it, but said we would spend money in prolonging the life of transition, specifically, that would allow us to defer beyond the 10 years in the plan. we need to keep an eye on that, and see what the smartest way of dealing with that known need. which currently falls off the edge of the page. and i think the go-solar issues fit in this as well. but it's an opportunity to take a high-level look at the major drivers of the business plan for each enterprise. see what those long planned trends are and to assess the power rates. that's one interest. and the other interest, we have adopted a bunch of policy. i think it would be helpful to get an assessment of how we are doing on that. and each pol
hale. >> good afternoon, commissioners, in your packet was a revised timeline for our cca program. let me highlight the changes from the last time we met. today will be activity under item 11. on our communications contract. we also have the rate fairness board scheduled this friday to consider our rates and possible preparation of a recommendation to the commission. they also have invited the local power folks, consultants, to come and make a presentation on what they are finding. we are on january 22, scheduling a presentation on the financial deliverables that local power has prepared for us. and then finally, the anticipated consideration of the noble contract in december has been postponed until june. given the fact that we are now incorporating the customer notification plan and education period. we don't need to bring that to you until that later date. those the changes to the timeline. the next activity, with the turn the calendar year, pg & e rates will change. that means when we talk about the premium that is represented over the pg & e rate will change. i want you to be awar
advances. there is one country in the world that is 100% solar power as of last month. cca cannot possibly do what they need done. the word -- you can boil this whole argument down to one question, one word and that is "inevitability". we are running out of the oil. we are drowning in our own waste. we need to stop burning oil and the way you could do it is putting a couple hundred solar panels on each house in san francisco. this was indirectly mentioned in the guardian editorial but they don't say it and it's because they don't understand it. it's important to understand what being done in germany and other countries around the world because by doing this they're creating a massive cash flow to homeowners in these countries and it's an investment that the homeowners are glad to take the money out of equity and buy panels with. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker. seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues this is just a discussion item. mr. . fried. >> i wanted to thank danielle for the work that she did. there were two co-chairs one left the city f
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 69 (some duplicates have been removed)